PM condemns strikes as 'height of irresponsibility', and says firms should allow parents to bring kids to work on day of action.

David Cameron told MPs 'where it is safe to help people bring their children to work then I think organisations should do so'. Photograph: PA

David Cameron has suggested firms should allow parents to take their children to work on the day that millions of public sector workers strike over pensions next Wednesday.

The prime minister told MPs in the Commons that the industrial action scheduled for 30 November was the "height of irresponsibility" on a day that he urged members to defy the strikes to avoid inflicting "pain" on hardworking people "who pay your wages".

Louise Mensch, Tory MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire, asked Cameron during prime minister's questions whether he thought people should take their kids to work with them to minimise disruption to their day.

Cameron told MPs: "These strikes are going to go ahead. Everyone should be very clear about where responsibility lies. It is with those union leaders and … the party opposite … but I think she makes an important point that where it is safe to help people bring their children to work then I think organisations should do so."

Tory colleagues asked Cameron a series of questions about the mass action scheduled for next week that will result in most schools being forced to close after the main education unions balloted members.

He said the planned walkout by millions of teachers, civil servants and other public sector workers was a "tragedy" at a time when an "extremely reasonable" pensions offer was on the table.

"It really is irresponsible, when negotiations are ongoing, to call strikes that will actually lead to the closure of most of the classrooms in our country," he said. It's the height of irresponsibility. I have to say, what is on offer is an extremely reasonable deal – low and middle earners getting a larger pension at retirement than now, all existing accrued rights being fully protected, any worker within 10 years of retirement seeing no change in either the age they can retire or the amount they can receive.

He challenged the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, to condemn the mass walkout, which he conceded would "lead to the closure of most of the classrooms in the country".

"I think also it is a tragedy that it is not just the union leaders that don't understand this but the party opposite refuses to condemn these strikes."

The Labour leader has previously said he thought strikes while public sector pension negotiations were still going on is a "mistake", and that strikes show a failure on both sides of the talks.

Cameron suggested in a column in the Sun that the strikes lack support from public sector workers as he urged members to cross the picket line and go to work.

"I'm so angry union bosses are ordering millions of public sector workers to strike next week – even while talks are under way. Most of them did not vote for this. Only a quarter of union members backed industrial action."

Ballots conducted by public sector unions taking part in the action have resulted in a range of turnouts but the traditionally more moderate unions have recorded the highest proportions of members voting.

While Unite had a turnout of 31%, the FDA, representing senior civil servants, including Whitehall mandarins and diplomats — which has never been on strike before – saw 81% back action on a turnout of 54%. Prospect, the civil service union, had a turnout of 52%.

Michael Dugher, Labour's shadow minister without portfolio, said both unions and government must "give ground" if a deal is to be reached.

"Everyone's concern now must be to avoid the hardship and disruption that will be caused for millions of families who rely on public services if these strikes go ahead," he said.

"But rather than telling hundreds of thousands of low paid, part-time working women who are set to be much worse off that they should not strike, David Cameron should be taking responsibility and trying to negotiate a deal that's fair to low paid workers and taxpayers alike. The government must bear much of the responsibility for what is happening because it jumped the gun and effectively imposed a 3% tax on public sector workers and then refused to negotiate on this. This surcharge is going straight to the Treasury and has nothing to do with the sustainability of public sector pensions. Even at this late stage, we urge both sides to exhaust every possible avenue to avoid industrial action. But ramping up the rhetoric and refusing to negotiate on key issues is not going to help avoid next week's strike."

The Guardian reported on Wednesday that UK Border Agency staff in embassies around the world are being offered flight homes to provide cover during next week's strike.

EU civil servants have backed strike calls over plans to give them a pay rise of 1.8% and increase their working week to 40 hours.

The prime minister's spokesman refused to comment directly on reports that the UK Border Agency is spending public money to fly in extra immigration staff from India, South Africa and Russia. But he said: "The public would expect us to do what we can to mitigate the effect of the strikes."

Cameron and Miliband also clashed over youth unemployment in the light of figures published last week that show more than 1 million 16-24-year-olds are now out of work.

The Labour leader claimed Cameron regarded unemployment as a "price worth paying to protect his failed plan" and called on him to impose a tax on bank bonuses to pay for youth job creation schemes.

Miliband said Cameron must change course on his economic strategy or risk a "lost generation" of unemployed youngsters becoming the symbol of his time in office.

"You were warned that your strategy of cutting too far and too fast wouldn't create jobs, you were warned it wouldn't create growth and you were warned you would find it harder to get the deficit down," he said. "Isn't that exactly what has happened?"

But Cameron insisted the UK was growing faster than the European average and warned that a change in approach could lead to increased interest rate rises.

He added: "That is the risk that we would have with Labour's plans for more spending, more borrowing and more debt."

I have to agree with David on this one. I've said it before but I will say it again....... I'm sorry but I won't be supporting any strikes made by the public sector over this issue. The UK simply cannot afford to continue providing these kind of pension benefits. We are all going to end up working longer for less, it's a fact of life now. We need to manage our expectations and be realistic. The majority of workers in the private sector lost this benefit years ago

Public sector workers who strike have the ability to affect the lives of many, many of the general public. Such action should only be taken in the most extreme circumstances.

Last edited by Feelthelove on Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:44 am; edited 1 time in total

Well I don't! Public sector workers do not get their pension for free, they pay into it, the same as any other pension. They have been doing so for years with the knowledge of the amount they will get out. Then someone decides arbitarily to change it, and they get less, later. I'd scream blue murder.

Interesting point raised here...If an employer can allow workers to take their kids to work in order to assist the govt to break a strike, then they can damn well do it ALL the time, should save millions of low paid workers a fortune in child care fees......

Well I don't! Public sector workers do not get their pension for free, they pay into it, the same as any other pension. They have been doing so for years with the knowledge of the amount they will get out. Then someone decides arbitarily to change it, and they get less, later. I'd scream blue murder.

Exactly, people are jumping against these public sector workers to me it seems like pure jealousy. That he private sector wont (not cant) compete with public sector pensions is the fault of the private sector alone and unions should respond to that the way they do in the public sector.

Workers are being told here that, regardless of what they were told, what they were signed up for, and what they thought they were getting; they will in fact have to put in more, for a longer period, and for less in return. It is totally out of order and they have my full support.

As to Camerons suggeston of kids, well that just shows how dogmatic he is in his views and the ridiculous words he is willing to spew in an attempt to sound 'passionate' in what he is saying. Christ the more this govt goes on the longer I wonder if we did right getting rid of the last lot (never thought I'd think that!)

tom sawyer wrote:It is because of the last lot that we are in this position.

That is whole other debate tbh, but the Tories wouldn't have done much different; the bankers are the big reasons for our mess; and there was a global recession which believe or not Labour can't have been entirely to blame for. They made a mess, no doubt, but this one is looking only to make things worse

Well I don't! Public sector workers do not get their pension for free, they pay into it, the same as any other pension. They have been doing so for years with the knowledge of the amount they will get out. Then someone decides arbitarily to change it, and they get less, later. I'd scream blue murder.

Isn't that just as with everything in life Sassy ? Promises made that can't be fulfilled...

Of course the Public Sector workers don't get their pensions for free, but what they do get is a guaranteed pension pot. Who underwrites that...?

Isn't that just as with everything in life Sassy ? Promises made that can't be fulfilled...

Of course the Public Sector workers don't get their pensions for free, but what they do get is a guaranteed pension pot. Who underwrites that...?

I know its silly o'clock in the morning, but reading through, had to reply to this Angel. Those figures are just not right. With reference to the teacher's pension. I was only with my final company 5 years, paid £50 a month for my pension, they put in £100 a month for me, and I get a pension from them of just over £4,000 a year. They still have a final salary pension scheme, which is expremely well run and with great financial back up. The figures for the teacher, with the amount they would have to pay into a private scheme are just stupid, if I had been with that company for 20 years + my pension from them would have been much more than the amount quoted for the teacher.

Well I don't! Public sector workers do not get their pension for free, they pay into it, the same as any other pension. They have been doing so for years with the knowledge of the amount they will get out. Then someone decides arbitarily to change it, and they get less, later. I'd scream blue murder.

Oh dear dear dear the private sector worker don't want me to have a pension worth 30% of my salary when they haven't got a pot to piss in. I'm going to strike and show them who is boss eh.

So you think it is fair that private sector workers who actually pay for public services should live in penuary to keep the public sector in platinum plated pensions.

I'd like to see you win that one Sassy. As I have already told you I hasve 20 years in public sector schemes and don't think I could win that argument. I shall watch this thread with great interest.

I know its silly o'clock in the morning, but reading through, had to reply to this Angel. Those figures are just not right. With reference to the teacher's pension. I was only with my final company 5 years, paid £50 a month for my pension, they put in £100 a month for me, and I get a pension from them of just over £4,000 a year. They still have a final salary pension scheme, which is expremely well run and with great financial back up. The figures for the teacher, with the amount they would have to pay into a private scheme are just stupid, if I had been with that company for 20 years + my pension from them would have been much more than the amount quoted for the teacher.

Actuaries these are the very bright individuals who work out pension forecasting have said it is 30% it's no use saying you don't beleive it because it doesn't meet your arguments.

Eilzel forgive me I have given you ared because your comment is plain stupid. The private sector won't not can't quote.

Absolute nonsense. nearly all final salary schemes have been closed they are unaffordable! They are unaffordable in the public sector as well the unions just won't have it.

The red is because you can't back up that remark.

Do you know how I know, because you are on your own against an army of actuaries. My nephew is an actuary BTW he spent ten years learning his trade after getting a first in his Pure Maths degree. He is a very very bright individual indeed and he told me his exams for the job were really really hard despite his ability at Maths.

I had a private sector final salary pension scheme which I lost a number of years ago. I banked the years I had already earned and continue to contribute to an average salary scheme.

Yes it hurt and yes, paying greater percentages of my salary into the fund each year also hurts. Particularly in the current climate.

However, as H20 states, realistically final salary pension schemes are simply no longer affordable. I don't like it but times change. When I first started work I had a non-contributory pension - it's life unfortunately

H20 wrote:Eilzel forgive me I have given you ared because your comment is plain stupid. The private sector won't not can't quote.

Absolute nonsense. nearly all final salary schemes have been closed they are unaffordable! They are unaffordable in the public sector as well the unions just won't have it.

The red is because you can't back up that remark.

Do you know how I know, because you are on your own against an army of actuaries. My nephew is an actuary BTW he spent ten years learning his trade after getting a first in his Pure Maths degree. He is a very very bright individual indeed and he told me his exams for the job were really really hard despite his ability at Maths.

Reds don't mean anything now H20 so don't worry about it- the only reason I don't bother is because they don't really 'add' anything to debate

As I'm sure you are right on parts of the private sector; others don't have that excuse. Certainly companies where directors and senior management continue to give themselves huge pay increases and bonuses and report large profits- can not truly say they can't afford higher pensions. I'm not saying all, but certainly some.

Well if you actually look at schools the cuts are actually affecting the children not these fat cat pensions that the public service workers are so desperate to safeguard.

Many free breakfast clubs and after school groups, free fruit etc is what is being cut. Governors of schools will quite happily cut actual help to children it seems before cutting teachers salaries.

Many LW'ers I meet are some of the lowest achievers at education and could not comprehend just how much one needs to pay into a pension plan in the real world to obtain a £25,000 a year pension.

I doubt whether Eilzel could do the maths you are proposing here Drinky.

'Fat cat pensions' is being a bit economical with the truth. The truth is that they are the pensions that were part of their terms of work, which, like all pensions have been paid into, planned for, and agreed on. Then the rug is pulled out at the last minute, when many don't have enough years left to make up the money in some other way. And I am absolutely sure Eilzel could do the maths.

'Fat cat pensions' is being a bit economical with the truth. The truth is that they are the pensions that were part of their terms of work, which, like all pensions have been paid into, planned for, and agreed on. Then the rug is pulled out at the last minute, when many don't have enough years left to make up the money in some other way. And I am absolutely sure Eilzel could do the maths.

Yes it's happened, its called the real world. Fucking teachers and other public sectors workers appear to have zero idea of just what a mess this planet is in. There's precious few resources and everyone in Europe is suffering financially.

They are like hyenas picking over the carcass here. There's not enough meat to go around but they will hold us all to bloody ransom to make sure they get their £25,000 a year coz it's in their goddamn contract.

WHAT ABOUT MY CONTRACT????

You know the one that says I can put my child in school for 36 weeks of the bloody year and not have to worry about taking a day off work due to greedy teachers. I mean I paid into a tax system for years and years before I even ever used any of these services. I mean how about the rug being pulled from my feet after I paid into a tax system which I've always had the knowhow and brains to avoid at all costs if I had a mind too?

I rather think yopu miss the point, firstly, not everone in europe is suffering financially, and the situation did not happen "inevitably" ....it was CAUSED, by the same fat greedy top end "merchants"..that is to say the fat bankers, and politicians, who are PRECISELY the ones who are NOT suffering now..vent your anger at them...because they are just taking the p**s and laughing at us, fighting amongst ourselves. They have turned able bodied against disabled, employed against unemployed, private against public sector and all the while keep giving themselves more and more of the meagre pot there is....

The Government gave an example of a teacher retiring on £37,000 getting a pension of £25,000 under its proposals, compared to £19,100 under the current scheme. This is disingenuous. What it didn’t say is that teachers would have to work to 68 for a pension of £25,200 under the proposed scheme, compared with 60 for the pension of £19,100 under the current scheme. This is not a like for like comparison and the Government knows it.